... and I posted it online. What does PayPal's user agreement really mean? Listen to it online in their own words in this recorded phone call.

These guys are really slimy suckers - but I got it on tape. If you are using PayPal or thinking about it - you might want to look at this.

http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm

I'm also looking for an alternative billing system. What do people recommend?

You rock!!! Good job!
Man, I have been trying to warn people about paypal for many years and I am always met with resistance.
They are not a bank and do not have to abide by banking laws...ie: "where's my money"
You have all these hosts and resellers trusting their business to paypal...unreal!
I am so glad someone finally gave them the hard time they give everyone else.
A real merchant account holds your funds for 5-7 days in case of fraud but paypal holds it for 180 days? OMG!!!
Noone will ever receive their funds. Paypal keeps it all.
They're nasty when you call because they know you can't do anything about it.
Customers can't file a chargeback after 30 days so why 180 days?
Because their thieves...simple enough. :smash:

My computer speakers aren't working, so I'm commenting only on what you wrote at your site. I don't think it was right for PayPal to keep your money, but I support their right not to provide service to individuals or companies with site content that doesn't fall within their boundaries. That is not censorship.

The accusation of "censorship" is misused a lot. Someone once accused me of censorship for choosing not to include a link to his site from one of mine. I was *not* censoring what he had to say, just as PayPal isn't censoring you. You can publish anything that's legal at your site, but the cry of censorship does not apply just because someone else doesn't want to be connected with it for whatever reason. If that reasoning worked, every library and bookstore would be guilty of censorship for carrying only material that fits within their budget and is suitable for their target audience.

I hope you get your money back.

Lois

Originally posted by writespeak
My computer speakers aren't working, so I'm commenting only on what you wrote at your site. I don't think it was right for PayPal to keep your money, but I support their right not to provide service to individuals or companies with site content that doesn't fall within their boundaries. That is not censorship.

Lois

Regardless, then why keep his money??
Why do people defend Paypal and their actions? I saw his site, nothing pornographic at all. A bit political...maybe paypal has a prob with that?
Either way, the fact is that end business with him sure, not want to be associated with him...ok
But keep his money for 6 months??!! That's sick, slimey and underhanded.:angry:

bliksem wrote:
>> Regardless, then why keep his money??

I agree completely that PayPal should not keep the OP's money.

>> Why do people defend Paypal and their actions?

I defended *only* PayPal's and everyone's right to choose not to be connected with particular content -- for whatever reason.

>> I saw his site, nothing pornographic at all. A bit political...maybe paypal has a prob with that?

I just saw the article titles. The content isn't relevant to me in this discussion, only people's right not to be connected with particular material. Would you accuse a Catholic elementary school library of censorship for choosing not to include material on birth control, or a lesbian bookstore for not including books about heterosexual marriage?

As a web writer, I may choose not to take on certain projects because I don't want to work with that content. That is not censorship either; it's simply making a choice. I'd have no problem with the person finding someone more suitable to write and publish the content.

>> Either way, the fact is that end business with him sure, not want to be associated with him...ok
But keep his money for 6 months??!! That's sick, slimey and underhanded.:angry:

I agree, and I agreed in my last post too.

Lois

Lois,
How can you say his content has nothing to do with this post? It has everything to do with this post as paypal ended his account and stole his money as a DIRECT result of his website.
>>Would you accuse a Catholic elementary school library of censorship for choosing not to include material on birth control, or a lesbian bookstore for not including books about heterosexual marriage?
Now that has nothing to do with this post...why are you bringing religion or lesbians into this topic, that's off base. Even as an example because a Lesbian bookstore or catholic high school wouldn't STEAL HIS MONEY and say they are allowed to do so. I have much I could say about that "example" of yours but it would be off topic and this forum is about a guy losing his funds to Paypal.

This post made by mperkel is about underhanded activites by paypal. You never even heard the recording and defend paypal's "right to not associate" with content? Fine, yes, you have the right to end a relationship with a client. I never argued that point...
But to steal his money is wrong...I know you agree there, but maybe you should hear the full recording before defending anything paypal does. If you *hear* the recording he specifically says to the guy, "Fine, close my account, but why hold my funds for 6 months?" And the guy basically tells him that they can do whatever they want with his money.
THAT'S THE POINT of this thread...paypal stealing funds from clients that have been clients, like mperkel, since the 90's only to get screwed in the end. It happens a lot and yet, people always defend paypal's actions even when they just paid out 9 million dollars to settle lawsuits for this very action.
What they are doing, in the entire context, is wrong and illegal...to break it down as you did is unfair to the situation. This isn't a thread to argue. If you want to continue a debate on the merits and liveliness of censorship, please PM me. I'll be happy to. But this isn't the place.

One addition, the point of this isn't whether Paypal has the right to not associate or not (that's obvious), it's they USED this EXCUSE to steal his money.

bliksem wrote:
>> How can you say his content has nothing to do with this post?

I didn't say that. I just said that it wasn't relevant to me in this discussion. My point was that individuals and organizations have the right not to be associated with content that isn't within their boundaries.

>> ...why are you bringing religion or lesbians into this topic, that's off base.

The examples were only to illustrate my point that individuals and organizations have the right not to be associated with content that isn't within their boundaries.

>> Even as an example because a Lesbian bookstore or catholic high school wouldn't STEAL HIS MONEY and say they are allowed to do so.

I've agreed from my first post in this thread that PayPal should not have taken the OP's money.

>> This post made by mperkel is about underhanded activites by paypal.

As I've said repeatedly, I agree that PayPal is in the wrong here for keeping the OP's money.

>> You never even heard the recording and defend paypal's "right to not associate" with content?

I said in my first post that "I'm commenting only on what you wrote at your site." The *only* thing I've defended is the right to choose what content to be associated with.

>> maybe you should hear the full recording before defending anything paypal does.

I'd listen to it if I could, but I can't. Since I can't, and since the background info site the OP linked to had some comments that I disagree with, I posted about those comments.

>> If you *hear* the recording he specifically says to the guy, "Fine, close my account, but why hold my funds for 6 months?" And the guy basically tells him that they can do whatever they want with his money.

*Again,* you have no disagreement from me that PayPal's actions with the money are wrong.

>> THAT'S THE POINT of this thread....What they are doing, in the entire context, is wrong and illegal...to break it down as you did is unfair to the situation.

I see. So if people agree completely with the OP, they can post, but if they disagree with one of his points on the page he linked to that's about his topic, they shouldn't post their opinions?

The world isn't black and white. Sometimes things need to be broken down if we're going to really look at them.

>> This isn't a thread to argue.

I was interested in friendly discussion with possibly differing opinions. I wasn't looking for an argument. People who read this thread can decide who is arguing and who isn't.

>> If you want to continue a debate on the merits and liveliness of censorship, please PM me. I'll be happy to.

Thanks for the offer, but no thank you. I just wanted to point out that what PayPal is doing is *not* censorship, and they have the right to choose what kinds of content to be associated with. I've agreed in every post that their taking the OP's money is wrong.

Lois

Whether this is unethical or not, Paypal has every right to hold your money, read the agreement, its horrible, but you agreed to it :/

Let's get something right here:
Paypal closed down your account due to the fact that your site violated their TOS/AUP, which YOU agreed to, and you're complaining here?
About what? About the fact that you got busted for violating Paypals TOS/AUP and now they're making you pay for it? Nice one.

As far as funds, and why they hold them, simple reason really:
Paypal is a rather large organization. tens, if not hundreds of thousands of individuals hold an account there, and they need to ensure that, in the unlikely event of a chargeback, these individuals will be covered. Paypal's not going to cover your chargebacks, you are. Sad but true. They hold these funds for 6 months so that they are there TO cover those chargebacks and whatnot. If you're all good in 6 months, you get your money back. Pretty standard practice, really.


Next time, before you sign up with something, READ the TOS/AUP, because you could have easily avoided this situation. They have the right to close you down if they feel you have done something wrong, or if you violated their TOS/AUP in any way, which (obviously) they did, otherwise they wouldn't have shut you down.

You ignored warnings about paypal and adult sites, you continued to operate your own adult site, which, whether you'll admit it or not is one. Paypal does not tolerate business from that kind of activity, believe me, I've seen 'em shut 'em down firsthand.

The 180 day limit is due to credit card chargeback rules - you can chargeback a payment made to Paypal (or anyone else for that matter) for up to 6 months, so once they lock an account they keep it for 180 days in case there are chargebacks, I understand the logic but I agree it does suck, but it's a case of crap flowing downhill" the top of the hill is the credit card companies letting people do chargebacks up to 6 months after a purchase in the interests of customer protection which hurts merchants but I do understand that also. End result is people want to hold money for 6 months to be safe if there's any doubt.

It's not like they cancelled me for fraud or chargebacks. In 4 years I never had a single chargeback or refund. So the 180 day thing is total ********.

Originally posted by mperkel
It's not like they cancelled me for fraud or chargebacks. In 4 years I never had a single chargeback or refund. So the 180 day thing is total ********.

Typical corporate crap, because it's remotely possible a few bucks of your money COULD be charged back in 6 months they keep it ALL knowing full well (it's their system isn't it?) how much of that money is TRULY at risk in being reversed yet they keep it all for 6 months regardless.

As you look for new payment options be sure to read their fine print, I'd be curious to hear if you find someone who doesn't have REALLY broad (and/or stupid) rules in their TOS.

Originally posted by mperkel
It's not like they cancelled me for fraud or chargebacks. In 4 years I never had a single chargeback or refund.
And in 2 years I haven't had one successfully launched against me either. HOWEVER
In accordance with banking regulations, more specifically visa/mc, paypal is required to honor all chargebacks for 6 months at the very minimum. Now, we get back to the whole "Who's going to hand the funds over" thing. Is it going to be you, or paypal? In the unlikely event that they do receive a chargeback (through visa/mc), they're required to hand over the funds, not after they've processed it, but before hand. So, you're kind of screwed there, gotta wait the 6 months.

Again, as Gary said, it sucks, I agree, however, the alternative is that paypal's out the money , and that's not happening.

I wouldn't have to wait 180 days - and - the risks for chargebacks are the same. My risk isn't changed just because PayPal doen't like my we content.

When I take my money out - they face the same risks of chargebacks.

Right, BUT
A> you didn't take the money out yourself, or close the account. It was closed for you, courtesy of paypal.
B> Paypal needs a way to protect their assets and the assets of their customers (you know, those of us who actually accept TOS/AUP).

Too many times in the past, individuals have had access to their funds cut off, and basically run off with the money, closing the bank account associated with the Paypal account, leaving paypal no valid way to replace the funds, with their account at $0. Well, this way, paypal covers their own tail, screwing the customer. It's bad, but prior history mandates that it is required, unfortunately, in order to run their corporation. If people weren't stupid and chilidish, then it wouldn't be necessary for them to hold their funds, but history has shown that they are stupid and childish (at least a very strong majority of them are), and will take any and all chance to screw paypal, especially after having their account forceably closed as yours was.

Exactly, it's a scam. Number 1, as a buyer through paypal, you negate your right to a chargeback...read that TOS that you keep referring to.
That is a bogus excuse. He could run a zero balance at any time when his account is open and PayPal has no "protection" but if they don't like his site, they'll use that as an excuse to steal his $$$???

>>>Paypal closed down your account due to the fact that your site violated their TOS/AUP, which YOU agreed to, and you're complaining here?

He isn't complaining about that, you really need to listen to the recording before offering so much "advice" here.

from paypal's own TOS site:
>>Buyer complaints must be filed within 30 days of the payment <<
>>RECOVERY OF YOUR CLAIM IS NOT GUARANTEED<<
Then why hold funds for 180 days??

>>The Buyer Complaint Policy only applies to tangible, physical goods which can be shipped, and excludes everything else, including but not limited to: intangibles, services, quasi-cash and all non-tangible, non-physical goods. The Buyer Complaint Policy does not apply to claims that a product was received but is not as described by the seller.<<

He was receiving donations. Again, why stea..uh..."HOLD" his money??


>>Complaints must be filed no later than 30 days from the date of payment. Only one Complaint may be filed per PayPal transaction. PayPal will seek to resolve the complaint within 30 days of the date the complaint is filed, though such time frame may be extended at PayPal’s discretion to accommodate the investigation. <<

Again, the entire TOS is contradictory. Both sides can prove their point through their terms of service. it's done this way on purpose.

>>And in 2 years I haven't had one successfully launched against me either.
Well, it took them 4 years to screw over mperkel so give it time and then come see us. We promise to be supportive :D

In reviewing the entire TOS for this guy, I see nothing that he violated except for the line that "Paypal can, at it's sole discretion, restrict your account..."

Originally posted by wolfstream
Right, BUT
A> you didn't take the money out yourself, or close the account. It was closed for you, courtesy of paypal.
B> Paypal needs a way to protect their assets and the assets of their customers (you know, those of us who actually accept TOS/AUP).

Too many times in the past, individuals have had access to their funds cut off, and basically run off with the money, closing the bank account associated with the Paypal account, leaving paypal no valid way to replace the funds, with their account at $0. Well, this way, paypal covers their own tail, screwing the customer. It's bad, but prior history mandates that it is required, unfortunately, in order to run their corporation. If people weren't stupid and chilidish, then it wouldn't be necessary for them to hold their funds, but history has shown that they are stupid and childish (at least a very strong majority of them are), and will take any and all chance to screw paypal, especially after having their account forceably closed as yours was.


Look, if they were concerned about buyers having their funds in case this site is the devil and a scam of all scams, notice the sarcasm, then why not refund the client's money that noone seems to have...except paypal. When he asked about returning the funds to his customer's he gets the runaround and "no guarantee" that they'll receive their funds. As a matter of fact, that is also stated in their TOS. That you are not guaranteed your funds.

Paypal grew too fast. Much scamming happened through auctions and such and their system is designed to make the fraud money up on accounts they freeze. It's been well documented.

They also just lost a major class action suit for this very thing.

You made my day Mark. That was great. I am probably switching to Auth now

I enjoyed this, unfortunately the OP is certainly not enjoying this, more power to you. It should not be this hard to do business. These paypal employees should be able to see that this user was not a problem, paypal has agreed to be the number one problem maker here, anti business tactics here. Wether or not "they" deem him to be breaking the rules, he has no course of action other than to reverse previously done sales.

I side with wolfstream on this one for the following points:

- Pay Pal is not a bank.
- Pay Pal has every right to protect its own interests.
- Pay Pal is not "keeping" the funds. They are holding them in the event a credit card issues a chargeback (perfectly reasonable). They will be released.
- Pay Pal has every right to refuse to do business with anyone they want, for any reason they want.
- Pay Pal is required to refund chargebacks to a card, chargebacks they will not pay out of their own pocket if at _all_ possible.
- Pay Pal is still giving interest on a money market account.
- Pay Pal has a set policy on refunding money to the account holder's customers. Simply follow the procedure.

I don't see what the ruckus is. You agreed to the TOS/AUP they set forth. They are a business and have interests to protect.

However, I do believe Pay Pal could have done more to help you, such as investigating the deposits. If they were determined to not come from credit cards, certainly they could have released the funds.

I've never been burned by Pay Pal (ever since they started a long time ago), but I also play by their rules. It doesn't mean I'll never be burned, so that's why I never hold a balance. It's free to withdraw, so I withdraw often. If I'm burned, it'll very likely be a small amount.

As for the legality of the recording, if memory serves, federal law allows recording of a conversation as long as one party consents.

Just my opinions.

[edit]
Oh, and the whole bit about "I bet I can get you to give me my money" part was pretty bad. That is extortion. You threatened them with a posting of the recording in an effort to get them to give you money (yours or otherwise). I'm no lawyer, but that's a pretty good definition of extortion.

Instead, to get your money back, refund the money to the customers and get it from them another way. Use their money-back procedure. I see no reason for them to not refund the money to the customers. If Pay Pal refuses to do that, they could initiate chargebacks and they'd be forced to comply. No one likes chargebacks. No need for threats. No one likes threats. Defenses go up when threats are thrown around.

That's why I'm rubbing PayPal's nose in the dirt. i am going to ensure that PayPay suffer from this and that they pay a severe economic price so that it will be in their interest to treat people like me with the honor and respect that a good customer deserves.

I don't believe they had the right to do what they did - but even if they do - I have the right to talk about it and post their recordings - or - to just get revenge. And I have some revenge coming. For those who haven't read the fine print - you can listen to PayPal explain what the fine print is - in their own words.

Man this scares me...I use them alot are there any others we can use ?

While I feel for ya buddy, nothing you can do right now is going to change Paypal's policies.

Even if you launched a class action lawsuit against them, what's that going to do? Get them to give each account they froze an extra $20? (I can link you to a lawsuit against other corporations where the total payout was millions, but to each person it was a few dollars...but millions to these corporations is nothing).

You'll get your money in 180 days...they have a right to protect themselves. You're just going to get yourself in more trouble if you spread these things. I wouldn't do it.

Just be happy you're going to get your money, unlike some other horror stories I've read.

Originally posted by mperkel
That's why I'm rubbing PayPal's nose in the dirt. i am going to ensure that PayPay suffer from this and that they pay a severe economic price Well... good luck with that. But you'll have to go beyond posting here and a couple of other forums to make a corporation the size of eBay Inc. even notice that you're alive, let alone "pay a severe economic price."

Marc,

Have you contacted different supervisors about this? Your site doesn't explicitly violate their TOS to the best of my knowledge, so if you contact multiple supervisors or managers, one person might be able to work with you.

- Matt

Well - when MCI screwed me I ended up on the CBS Evening News about it.

Originally posted by mperkel
Well - when MCI screwed me I ended up on the CBS Evening News about it.
In that case, I better watch how I treat you as a customer :D ;)

- Matt

You'd think being on CBS would get their attention :)

I don't believe they had the right to do what they did

Marc, Marc, Marc....You got to get it in your head that what they did is unethical and very poor customer relations, but they very much had the right to do everything they did. Once again, in the TOS that YOU agreed to while signing up :(

Im no fan of paypal, but they had the right to do everything they did.

... to do what I'm doing and make them suffer for it. You see - I have every right to do what I'm doing.

Yes, all the power to you, paypal is crap, but to say that they did not have the right to hold your money is not a fair arguement...

Best of luck getting your money back :)

Yeah I think this boils down to paypall doing what it says it can do (but that no one really understands, since they don't really say it loud enough), which turns out to burn a lot of people because it's relatively unethical and a little dishonest and people assume that a corp like that is going to be honest and ethical.

All the poster's trying to say is that he's hoping he can make big enough waves to start some reformation. In fact, I'm sure he'd be happier if paypal got better rather than died. (Though he's going to have to do a TON of work for either of those). We need noisy people to do this stuff. Doesnt matter who's wrong or who's right, Paypal is generating tons of unhappy and screwed over people, and it should stop.

I lost money thru them, but for my 70 bux (shipping error on the sellers part when i was a buyer on anandtech led to a refund of my money, then, the package was returned to sender, resent, and i repaid, we both got our accounts frozen and couldn't get hold of anyone to fix it... so we were out 2x shipping and 70 bux i had in there. We split the loss 'cause we're both upright people... but that's just stupid. Never do small business with someoen multiple times if you've done any back and forth i guess)... but i did'nt complain 'cause i'm too lazy and busy.

so props to the starter and keep it up. But you might want to avoid words like 'can't do that' or wutever, 'cause they can. Stick to wrong, dishonest and unethical. Then people can't nitpick over your points.

180 - day is the STANDARD exposure for a chargeback. If you violated TOS then would be the same in ANY bank.

Originally posted by telnettro
Yeah I think this boils down to paypall doing what it says it can do (but that no one really understands, since they don't really say it loud enough), which turns out to burn a lot of people because it's relatively unethical and a little dishonest and people assume that a corp like that is going to be honest and ethical.

All the poster's trying to say is that he's hoping he can make big enough waves to start some reformation. In fact, I'm sure he'd be happier if paypal got better rather than died. (Though he's going to have to do a TON of work for either of those). We need noisy people to do this stuff. Doesnt matter who's wrong or who's right, Paypal is generating tons of unhappy and screwed over people, and it should stop.


so props to the starter and keep it up. But you might want to avoid words like 'can't do that' or wutever, 'cause they can. Stick to wrong, dishonest and unethical. Then people can't nitpick over your points.

Couldn't agree with you more. That's the whole point of this post and the guy deserves props for doing what many people feel is pointless. Every great revolution starts small, right? :D

Anyone who is complaining over PayPal's TOS and think they've exposed a huge contradiction between the '30 days' mentioned there versus the '180 days' for chargebacks... you didn't read it carefully enough.

PayPal terms 'Buyer Complaints' as those that are disputed THROUGH THEM.
This means that a PayPal account holder went to PayPal directly and filed a complaint over a charge made to their PayPal account.
They went and filed under the 'Buyer Protection Policy' in hopes of having PayPal arbitrate the matter and find in favor of them, and therefore, PayPal is in complete control of reversing the funds (or not).
Key point here is that PAYPAL is the mediator, and therefore the sale is only protected for 30 days.

Chargebacks, on the other hand, occur when a buyer complains to their Credit Card company, who then decides on the matter, and reverses the payment on PayPal directly.
PayPal has then lost funds to the buyer, and it's their job to find a way to recoup that money.
This method of getting your money back is protected by the credit card companies for the 180 days mentioned in this thread.

PayPal has its flaws, but they're not scammers.

If you want to have more control (and more responsibility) over your client's payments, get a merchant account.

They arent taking his money because they don't like his content, in fact they arent taking his money at all, just freezing it for 180 days.

The reason is this. He in some way, is using paypal to get "paid" for his adult sites. Paypal does not want you to do this simply because it looks like paypal is endorsing his activities. That's why they wacked him...

He must have had "pay for your smut right here through paypal!". Makes it look like somehow paypal is perfectly OK with his content which gives them a bad name.

He has a right to say whatever he feels on his site, and paypal has a right NOT to be dragged into his web site and act as his merchant account too. If I were paypal I would not be want to be on his site either.

<<Edited/keep it nice>>

But instead of it being there to make money it's there to let people hear the recording.

I hate to say it but this is an example of how illiteracy is such a problem in America. When people don't read a TOS and get the bitter end of the stick as a result of said violation, they turn to their emotions rather than rational argument. I would not be surprised if this particular user signed up to PayPal and autonomously checked the I agree to Paypal's Terms of Service or what have you, and proceeded to fill out his information. Ignorance is of no excuse and as Noam Chomsky said, "You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions."

Under UK laws you cannot make a telephone recording public unless both parties agree. I'm not sure of the laws in America but over here you could be taken to court for making a recording like that.

That's why when I phone any large company here you will get a message saying "Your call maybe recorded for training purposes"... Come to think of it my US bank does the same..

.... literally - "This call may be recorded." And thus gives permission. Additionally if one party is recording the call then there is implied concent to recording. And - they didn't ask my permission that the call be recorded.

That´s why they inform you and if you don´t like it you just could hang up. Wow mate, after reading your site and the other documents there - YES this can only be America.

Threads like this really bug me.

1. You agreed to their TOS. Nobody forced you to deal with them. You always had the option to terminate the account and go elsewhere. You didn't seem to mind them when your account was active. Suddenly now you have a fundamental objection to their terms? Seems hypocrytical to me.

2. What's so hard to understand about the 6 month rule? Banks allow up to 6 months to charge back. PP is simply covering their proverbial butt. The only inconsistency is that they don't bother with holdbacks while an account is active and in good standing. Personally, I'd have no objections to a holdback. It's part of business.

3. It's a specious argument at best to suggest that the "This call may be recorded" statement should apply to both you and them. This is a message that they are giving you. They are giving you advance notice. It is then up to you to continue or hang up. You cannot stand by that caveat as if it originated with you. Clearly, you would have to provide your own. Trying to get "cute" with semantics doesn't cut it in a court of law.

4. You keep saying that they are keeping your money. They are not keeping your money. That would suggest that they will never pay you. It is simply being held as protecton against chargebacks as per their TOS.

Why do you people insist on signing up at places where you do not agree with their TOS? :confused: And then bitch about it when they are enforced?

Boggles the mind.

And yes, I did listen to the entire (illegally taped) phone call. Frankly, it did nothing to strengthen your case, and just made Paypal look good. If it was me on the line with you, I wouldn't have had nearly as much patience as that guy had.

Vito

Vito... You said what i'm trying to type.... I Agree with you 100%

Seems to me 95% of those Paypal sucks kind of web sites (including your own) is not solely based on PayPal's service as a third party payment processor but on the limitations of PayPal's terms of service.

I was actually surprised at how corporate the PayPal representatives were on the phone were. Almost never unwavering professionalism during an all out attack and numerous attempts to ridicule PayPal as a corporation and those representative's personally.

I see PayPal in a different light now; as I have to admit, PayPal and I have had a little bit of friction in the past. Nevertheless, I saw that this was a difference between how PayPal runs and how I would have assumed PayPal would run. My logic in PayPal's operation definitely differed from PayPal's actual operation. It's tough to admit it, but it was my personal anger toward PayPal that temporarily made me hate PayPal for a while.

You need to take a step back from your personal situation and look at this in its entirety. PayPal has millions of customers just like you, and they can't possibly stray away from their own contract to you and you to them to make you happy.

I don't see why you're so worked up. You said it yourself, you can get that money back before 180 days and they even told you how. Prior to getting another payment processor, make sure you read the TOS and actually agree to it. Same goes for everyone else.

I think that Vito summarized this perfectly.

Marc, you are 100% entitled to express your discontent with PayPal and to tell everyone you know about this. That is absolutely your right and privilege. I doubt anyone here will disagree with that.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to whether your recorded conversation is legal or not, but I'd advise you seek counsel prior to arriving at a firm conclusion on that.

It IS legal IF you announce in advance that you are recording it - but unless I'm mistaken, I didn't hear you announce that during your initial discussions with PayPal until the latter portions.

However, PayPal is also within their rights to handle their customer relationships based upon the TOS terms that are mutually agreed to by their customers.

If their TOS prohibited the sale of the kind of content that you were providing - and you breached your agreement with them or violated their TOS, then it is their express right to hold or delay funding to you on those sales.

Also keep in mind - no one is "taking" any funds... they ARE paying you, just on a delayed basis and waiting the full 180 days so that they are covered for any chargebacks that may come through against your sales.

It could be a LOT worse. There are people here on this very forum who had TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars held/lost due to NO fault of their own from companies like Ginix... and sadly, many of these people may NEVER get paid and they have been waiting for 6 months to a YEAR or longer. (Frankly, a lot of these Ginix customers would probably dance with joy if they had confidence that they would get paid in 180 days!)

I certainly don't like every aspect of PayPal. But I'm certainly not going to say that they are some kind of fraud or scam or "evil company." It is difficult to keep everyone happy all the time when you have millions of customers processing tens of millions of transactions.

And I'm sure that the way they handle a risk issue lacks personal attention or may be handled in a "drone-like" matter. That's certainly possible and a valid point... and a valid reason why using PayPal may NOT be a good option. It is also one of the downsides of dealing with a 3rd party option like PayPal in the first place.

But you do need to keep in mind the very real and tangible losses that processors like Paypal as well as Merchant Processors take on a daily basis.

Sometimes it is hard to appreciate this fact if you don't get a steady stream of daily chargeback reports, risk reports and loss reports dropped on your desk every day. But believe me, this is very real and it happens through all categories of business.

Payment processing isn't an industry where there are huge margins and minimal risk. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

There is a lot of risk present and the margins are often quite small - with the issuing banks taken the majority of the fees that are charged.

Therefore, managing risk effectively is a key necessity for the longevity of any payment processing operation.

If a merchant processes outside of what they were approved to process for, it is quite understandable why a processor would be concerned and if it is for a product or service that is unauthorized - I wouldn't be all surprised if funds are held back until a time at which it is safe to release them.

My comments on the recording part. If you call any business (credit card, bank, whatever) that has that robotic claim that they are recording for training purposes... while they are stating that, you say that you are recording.

The thing is, this is entirely legal, because when they make their statement, they are recording. So they have you on record for making your statement as well.

Now, if instead, a real live person answered, and you make your statement, and they hang up. Then you can state, truthfully, that they hung up on you and refuse to provide service/support. And this is not a lie, as it is true.

Anyways, IMO, no reputable business use PayPal, so... :P

Not sure what you mean about the recording, Shannara. Maybe it's me, but I just didn't understand your point.
Originally posted by Shannara
Anyways, IMO, no reputable business use PayPal, so... :P What any incredibly sweeping statement that is. Are you suggesting that those of us who use Paypal as one of our payment options are not running reputable businesses?

Vito

All of you people saying "Well, you agreed to the TOS..." forget that the paypal TOS has been thrown out time and time again in courts of law. It also says you can't take legal action against them, but you can.

The TOS Paypal has is crap, in two senses: One, the rules are stupid, and two, it doesn't hold water.


For those of you saying that the recording is illegal - He states it, however late in the message it may be, that would be the time for the Paypal representative to say "You may not use this recording in public". Without Paypal saying the message cannot be put in public, with knowledge that it exists, they cannot do anything. It is perfectly legal for him to have posted it. Now, I haven't listened to the recording, but Iassume that someone would have made waves if paypal had said "No using this recording".

Originally posted by TalonKarrde

The TOS Paypal has is crap, in two senses: One, the rules are stupid, and two, it doesn't hold water. Well, with such a compelling argument, who could challenge that?

Oh, and you are wrong about the recording. He is supposed to advise them that he is recording the conversation beforehand , not after it's already on tape. Both the thread starter and Paypal are located in California - a state in which the laws require all party consent. What that means is a person cannot record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party.

Alabama - One Party
Alaska - One Party
Arkansas - One Party
California - All Party
Colorado - One Party
Connecticut - All Party
Delaware - All Party
District of Columbia - One Party
Florida - All Party
Georgia - One Party
Hawaii - One Party
Idaho - One Party
Illinois - All Party
Indiana - One Party
Iowa - One Party
Kansas - One Party
Kentucky - One Party
Louisiana - One Party
Maine - One Party
Maryland - All Party
Massachusetts - All Party
Michigan - All Party
Minnesota - One Party
Mississippi - One Party
Missouri - One Party
Montana - All Party
Nebraska - One Party
Nevada - One Party
New Hampshire - All Party
New Jersey - One Party
New Mexico - One Party
New York - One Party
North Carolina - One Party
North Dakota - One Party
Ohio - One Party
Oklahoma - One Party
Oregon - One Party
Pennsylvania - All Party
Rhode Island - One Party
South Carolina - One Party
South Dakota - One Party
Tennessee - One Party
Texas - One Party
Utah - One Party
Vermont - One Party
Virginia - One Party
Washington - All Party
West Virginia - One Party
Wisconsin - One Party
Wyoming - One Party


Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Vito

Vito - you're dead wrong as usual.

The automated voice at the beginning - which I recorded - said, "This call may be recorded". That's consent. When you have consent then it's legal.

PayPal consented - and I was talking to PayPal. I was not talking to anyone as individuals.

Marc, they are advising you that the call may be recorded. Not the other way around. I really don't understand why you can't see that.

Then again, it could be because I'm dead wrong as usual. ;)

Vito

I have a lot of legal and court experience and I've researched this. Consent applies both ways. That means if someone says that they are going to record the conversation they are consenting to allow all parties to record the conversation. If anyone is allowed to record then everyone is allowed to recoed.

So - when they said that they were allowed to record then they were giving me permission to record.

PayPal really do take the piss when it comes to locking accounts, my freind had £700 in his account and they locked it. So he got legal action on PayPal and they gave him his money back within a week.

Vito, What you said would also be the case in Europe. The actually Agent on the phone could also sue on the basis that their voice is being broadcasted publicly.. Remeber they are just doing their job and go home at the end of the day. Why should they be victimized for just doing what they are paid for!

Silly question to mperkal but you sound very business savy so why on earth are you using Paypal!
Thanks

Gavin

... people wanted to pay me using paypal. It's very convienient when it works.

Originally posted by mperkel
I have a lot of legal and court experience and I've researched this. Consent applies both ways. That means if someone says that they are going to record the conversation they are consenting to allow all parties to record the conversation. If anyone is allowed to record then everyone is allowed to recoed.

So - when they said that they were allowed to record then they were giving me permission to record. I disagree, Marc. I am not a lawyer, but it does seem pretty straight forward. Do you have any reference you can provide to prove your point?

And purely for the sake of argument, let's say that you are allowed to tape it. You're forgetting the spirit of the law. Did the recording caveat not state specifically it was to be used for purposes of quality assurance? In general, "quality assurance" recording means that a Caller would reasonably expect that the recorded calls will only be used internally by the organization for improvement of customer service and call handling. So if you're claiming the right to record the conversation based on their warning, then how do you think you can use/play it on your site for purposes other than quality assurance?

Vito

There's nothing in their message that says anything about quality assurance. The message says literally - "This call may be recorded." and nothing else.

Ah, I just played your message again and I was wrong. I thought they mentioned quality assurance but apparently not. I still contend, though, that the general spirit of the recording laws outlines the acceptable uses for the recordings, and I suspect using the recording on your public site is not one of them.

I would still be interested in any verifiable information you can provide that would back up your position. Until then, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Vito

Vito, Paypal had knowledge it was being recorded. They made no attempt to have him stop, or not release it. If it is on the record that they know and made no attempt to stop it, they can't do anything afterwords.

It's similar to Trademarks. If you don't defend it, you lose it.


As for the TOS not holding water, just look up court cases involving Paypal. In the majority of them, the TOS is thrown out. I'm not going to take the time to list them, but they are public record, and google will give you enough links. There's also precedent for the recording deal as well.

Originally posted by TalonKarrde
Vito, Paypal had knowledge it was being recorded. They made no attempt to have him stop, or not release it. If it is on the record that they know and made no attempt to stop it, they can't do anything afterwords.
When were they informed that the conversation was being recorded? 3/4 of the way into the conversation as far as I can see. And how are they supposed to make him stop? They can't reach through the phone and press the Stop button. They told him directly that they do not agree to being recorded. I think their refusal of consent was quite clear. The only thing I fault them for is that they stayed on the line with him. Personally, I would have hung up on him right then and there. But still, the fact that they stayed on the line does not imply consent.
Originally posted by TalonKarrde
As for the TOS not holding water, just look up court cases involving Paypal. In the majority of them, the TOS is thrown out. I'm not going to take the time to list them, but they are public record, and google will give you enough links. There's also precedent for the recording deal as well.
I don't disbelieve you, TalonKarrde. There may be documented cases. Although I'm not inclined to bother searching for any of them. It's not my fight with PayPal, it's Marc's. I'm sure he will spend his own time researching it, if he hasn't already.

Notwithstanding any precedent cases, I still go back to my point in my first post. I do not understand why you would agree and accept TOS upon signup when you have a fundamental objection to what is contained in the TOS. If you don't agree, don't sign up. That is such a painfully simple concept, I don't know why we're even talking about it. It was only after they enforced their TOS that Marc raised a stink about it. Again, I find it very hypocritical that he would use them for accepting payments on his site, after having agreed to the TOS, and then whine about it afterwards when they enforce the terms to which he agreed.

It's like moving into no-pets building knowing it's a no-pets building, and then bitching about it when they serve you an eviction notice when they find you have 12 cats and a dog.

It...just...defies...logic.

Vito

I had yet to have a problem with PayPal and I have been using them for over a year. They are great!

Vito: Nicely summed up :)

Is this thread actually going somewhere?
I can only see more argumentative posts in the future.

I think the points were made:

- Read the Terms of Service before accepting it.
- If you don't like the service, don't use it.
- Some people hate PayPal.
- Some people like PayPal.
- PayPal can freeze your account at their discretion (Paypal's TOS).

Notwithstanding those points, no one has made any progress on the legality of recording the phone conversation either since none of you are experts in privacy Laws nor a judge of any municipal court. Now that I think about it, the argument of legality is useless since it's PayPal's decision whether or not they take legal action against Marc's recording. So arguing over it is futile.

Originally posted by mperkel
I have a lot of legal and court experience and I've researched this. Consent applies both ways. That means if someone says that they are going to record the conversation they are consenting to allow all parties to record the conversation. If anyone is allowed to record then everyone is allowed to recoed.

So - when they said that they were allowed to record then they were giving me permission to record.

This makes sense it would seem to me if I say "I'm recording this call" that should imply if I can record so can you, it shouldn't require that you say "well I am too" since they're doing it you should be able to too.

Yep, I got the same thing from that Gary, they open themselves up, like a dual responsibility statement, and alpha, I dont see a lot of problems with the thread, or there has been posts wiped. No reason to close it any time soon unless you're seeing problems we are not.

Originally posted by Samuel
... and alpha, I dont see a lot of problems with the thread, or there has been posts wiped. No reason to close it any time soon...

If you read the original thread, you'll see that Marc has posted the phone conversation and you'll see this in the end:I'm also looking for an alternative billing system. What do people recommend?

Obviously, the discussion in regard to PayPal's policy and people's opinions about Marc's issues are fine. Nevertheless, the back-and-forth discussion/arguments about the legality of recording the phone call is not what this thread is about. It seems like to me people are trying to reason the legality through logic and common sense - but this can not be done and the argument will never cease at WHT.

Whether or not it was right or wrong, it's already been said and done and no one can change that... except maybe PayPal if they decide that it was illegal for Marc to record the conversation and declare a cease and desist. So why keep arguing over it?

And no, obviously, I am not going to close this thread as the issue is still far from being resolved. Marc is in need of another 3rd party payment processor so if you have a suggestion, fire away.

Multiple recurring scheduling is more than likely what Marc needs, and is what I am currently organizing through a local merchant services provider. Paypayl, 2checkout, and a host of other vendor contracted services really don't suit the web hosting businesses that are out there unless they annoy their customers with having to make payments multiple times so most people understand (That have researched this) that a real merchant account is wqhat is needed and is easier to get than they realized.

A sole proprietership
Fictitios business name statment (Sorry for typos, no glasses)

I like sweeping statements as i hear more negatives then positives, plus with my experience with such a illegit company :P

Anyways, concerning the recording, if you say "I am recording" while the robotic (computer) voice says, "We are recording for training purposes, or quality assurance", then they have automatically concented to having the conversation recorded on your side.

This guy is a dingbat. So many minutes of fighting as if they should violate their own TOS to give him his money back before the time period he agreed to.

I'm not a lawyer either, but, I've done a lot of research into phone call recording laws for a project I was doing. Here's what I know:

1. Federal law (in america) is "one party consent". Which means either party can choose to record the call, without informing the other. (or in the case of multiple parties, any party on the call ("one party consent").

2. There's also state law, which varies a lot. Don't know what state you're calling when you call paypal. It's gets even tricky with outsourcing to india, but, see number 3.

3. You are correct, I think, that because of the fact that they said "This call may be recorded", that you have the right to record the call as well, even in all-party consent states. In this case, the recording was not consented by "one party", it's consented by two. (By all). You can see how, legally speaking, it's quite absurd to say "well I only consented to ME recording the call, not YOU." So I seriously doubt that any of the all-party state laws are written like that. And the "...for quality purposes" part is irrelevant.

4. Her whole bit about her having individual rights outside of paypal is absolutely, utterly, entirely, absurd. You could have said "OK, well in that case, if I have a problem with my paypal bill can I sue you as an individual, Laronda?" She needs to read HER paypal agreement. The employee agreement.

And by the way, you made a mistake when you said "I bet I can get you to give me my money when I put this up on my web site." That's extortion, whether you intend it or not. You're so much better off coming in as "I'm just warning the public about you". Instead of "...or else I'm warning the public about you." That was your big mistake, so many people make it.

For example, I'm about to start a campaign to inform the public about a former client who stiffed me. Wrote a check and then canceled it after I uploaded the service. I didn't make him sign a contract, unfortunately. Once I start the campaign, I'm not going to accept payment from him. Even if he throws checks at me I won't cash them. He's a lawer and I know that if I do, he can claim (if falsley) that the campaign was extortion. Once I start the campaign, I won't accept a penny.

Here's some (admitedly less than official) urls:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
http://pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html

Originally posted by Dan Grossman
This guy is a dingbat. So many minutes of fighting as if they should violate their own TOS to give him his money back before the time period he agreed to. I agree. I actually listened to the entire recording. While I am not fond of PayPal (for my own reasons), in this case he did violate the TOS and then got mad when they followed procedures. Holding the money for 180 days seems to be pretty standard. There was a recent thread on these forums about a merchant account that did the same thing.

I didn't find the recording damaging to PayPal. They managed to stay pretty professional during the entire conversation. They sure did better than I would of.

He kept saying they were "stealing" his money, yet they promised to repay in 180 days - with interest on the money in the money market account. Doesn't really sound like stealing to me. When you exagerate like that, I tend to disregard a lot of what you say.

... to each his own. Hope everything works out with the next payment processor.